[r-t] Change Proposal to CC Decisions - on peal lengths

Martin Cansdale mjclists at gmail.com
Mon Jun 26 10:09:05 UTC 2006

On 6/24/06, Barriehen at aol.com <Barriehen at aol.com> wrote:
> In terms of Surprise Maximus ringing 5280 was the norm until it was realised
> that a course could be shortened.   So here was the case of a peal not
> having anything to do with an extent , then being shortened by a device
> which was not approved of by many ringers, and which gained full acceptance
> with time.   Even after the first 5042's were rung they were for several
> years regarded as suitable only for Thursday night peals and full 10 courses
> were rung on saturdays.  So 5000 was not seen as the peal length in those
> days.

Isn't this missing the point by a substantial distance?  As far as I
understand it, the ringing of 5280s was nothing to do with the length
a peal should be, but rather the length a peal had to be if singles
weren't to be used.

As Graham is asking for opinions, I'll say that I don't agree with
reducing the minimum length to 5000 for triples and below.  Looking at
Graham's email from Saturday, points 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all basically
"why not?" (point 4 also makes little sense - I can't see that peals
of major and above can be used to give an indication of how often
people ring an extent with an extra plain course inserted).  Point 5,
which gives the reason for the change, is in my view irrelevant.  I
really can't see why peal lengths need adjusting to solve the problem
of quarter peals of triples between 1250 and 1259 changes.  I also
don't see why allowing 5080s of doubles but not 5000s is any less
logical than allowing 5079s but not 4999s.

Why is there a need to ring parts of an extent at lower stages?  The
link to major, allowing lengths between 40320 and 80640, seems wholly
spurious.  Changing the rules to allow one and a bit extents seems no
more radical than ringing just the bit of an extent.

It's been said that peals of doubles where different rows are rung a
different number of times should be allowed so that anniversaries can
be marked by suitable numbers of changes.  Is this really important?
I don't think a peal of 5040 doubles to mark the Queen's birthday is
any less of an achievement or tribute than a 5080.

Why should hundreds of years of precedent be abandoned for no
overwhelmingly compelling reason?  If the peal length is to be
standardised at 5000 so that 40 changes can be left out of an extent,
why not change it to 4998, so that three whole leads of Grandsire
Triples can be ommited?  Or 4997, so it can come round at handstroke?
Or 4996...


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list